RE:InterestingIf i remember correctly the p and n are what are akin to a call polarity. So think of a magnet the top marked n for north and s south for bottom so it is really differentiating the two planes and i suppose polarity. Natcore was talking n and p type "back contacts" doping and hetrojunction cell. From my recollection the hetrojunction cell is really the cell alignment which is layered and best seen akin to a honeycomb design. This layering from what i could tell was all to do with increasing the pisitive polar charges to garner more energy and interconnectivity. As i mentioned cells lose charge between each other when assembled in a matrix in the overall solar pannel. So far as to my knowledge i dont believe people have effectively figured out a way to stop some loss from happening but are looking to the n and p type to potentially increasr the charge. I believe from what Natcore was doing and while looking across other solar companies along with q solar which i also held shares in the hetrojunction is the way to go as well as finding a way to put an overlay coating on the panels that will further not only absorb more of the suns light but also retain it. In the past this was the reason for a more darker tint to the panels so some were lighter blue in color going darker to literally black. All the lines and dots across the panels are all how the matrix looks with those being the interconnectivity what i am talking about each cell put together in the overall panel and what is always tested for in terms of energy loss. Natcore was trying to make what it called an all black panel and they were doing this by trying to find coatings to absorb more of the suns light. What the company was trying to achieve is more efficient solar panels at not only lesser cost but also cleaner for the environment. The panels from my recollection is produced by several heating phases two at least and requires what are typocally high heating vacuum furnaces. From my recollection a wafer is cut coated and heated into a single cell. When there are the needed number of cells the are arranfed into the panel and heated again so theoretically there are two vacuum furnaces and heating cycle there may be a third. The furnaces heat at extremely high temperatures that as with any process some cells warp crack and break so not only is there lots of carbon emitted but you have loss of material. On top of this cells are typical coated in chemicals which are often toxic to the environment. As to my knowledge another added expense is the use of trace amounts of silver i cant quite remember when that is placed in but that is for conductivity purposes. So in essence, Natcores answer was to potentially eliminate both the furnaces and use ambient condition environmentally friendly chemicals to coat the cells and arrange them into the panels where they would beat the best cell in the market in energy efficiencies and retention. Under lab settings the company wasnt able to even equal the highest standard cell which was at that point 18 percent. Natcore achieved 15 percent and was trying hard to hit 18 percent plus as buyers were not interestex in a loss of energy despite the environmental benefits which is too bad the company went under it just couldnt find a way to equal let alone beat. At that point a few years down the line the South Wales University in Australia had the highest cell efficiency under lab settings around 23 percent although soon after one of the big players i forgot who had a 23.5 percent but from what i could see did not achieve it on a full scale production line. This is going more than 10 years back so if anyone on a commercial scale is hitting 25 percent which i highly doubt despite being a decade id not more since i was quite involved in solar that is quite good because as people are rightly talking each 1 percent energy efficiencies is as i would like to illustrate it so people can understand and appreciate the magnitude of eve a 1 percent gain is like 100ths of a second in the Olympics that can separate first from 8th place that is how tough it is to move the yardstick in solar cell efficiency. So there are several challenges reducing if not elimininating loss in interconnectivity increasing cell efficency and retention as i posted cells lose 2 to 5 percent energy efficiency as the day goes on due to the weakening of the suns light so to capture that energy the panels were coupled with things like smart grids or storage receptacles. The only way to my knowledge where solar can be on "grid parity" true grid parity isnt having panels in of themselves but linked to a smart grid and that too it would need to be arranged in what is called highly concentrated solar panels. The typical ones on rooftops are not it and because solar farms take up huge amounts of space the panels became building integrated photo valic or bipvs but the efficiency is what it is low 20s. The highly concentrated panels could be coupled with other sources of energy or arrangment. Many companies realizing that the panels without being highly concentrated wasnt really true grid parity moved away from what is termed roof top solar to ones feeding the grid. First solar was such a company. Grid parity is that solar is on par with fossil fuels from what i could see despite people making those claims at then 18 to about 22 percent that seem to be false and i believe still is. I think for grid parity you would need more than 25 percent efficiency some at the time were saying minimum 30 percent to as high as 50 percent which i believe is most likely the case otherwise the roof tops without smart grid technology would be good enough they are not. Now if the smart grids keep improving with the acdc currents converting switching and taking power using less and giving more hence the acdc set becomes efficient theoretically despite any shortfall in solar efficiency this can possibly account for and make up to grid parity but roof top solar itself no i highly doubt it without being at least 30 percent but this is just my opinion. Very interesting industry and like i said even though not much appears to have been done in terms of advancements getting to 25 percent is extremely hard what to say of breaking it people continue to strive to keep going. Is solar truly cleaner for the environment hard to say due to the high heat given off the chemicals used mining for the material etc. One would have to factor all this and measure against the amount of ongoing energy produced by the sun over the duration of a panels life. I dont think renewable energy is as clean as people pass them off to be but really hard to say unless it is all properly accounted for. The same questions are asked about evs and electrification as well as hydrogen etc. I dont believe any is as clean as proponents claim but the true question to me is are they at least cleaner than oil gas coal hydrocarbons etc. Every energy source will have its pros and cons and i believe they will continue to exist in some amounts or the other. To me from my time looking at energy and from a lay persons perspective it is about having a proper energy mix of all sources vs tryimg to get rid of some altogether again we need to look at the pros and cons and when are each of the sources beneficial to use more than others and to what quantities. People talk about liquid natural gas lng for instance. In the late 90s there was a huge push for it with Australia being a big existing player ready to feed the hungry Chinese market the US was fairly big and Canada wanted to enter converting dam sites into lng production outposts so they were looking at using what was Site C Damn in BC. The energy to produce lng is massive and a lot of it would be energy transmitted via interconnected grid from Alberta to BC the two provinces are next to each other BC is the western most region Alberta the next over, using energy from coal generated steam. The BC givernment was holding this fact selling it on the basis it would be bc generated steam from damning but off peak overnight the power would also be supplied via coal generated steam to BC. I was not at all impressed but as it happened the unit of messure forgot what it was but it was at a high of $29 per that unit but because there were many looking to supply and huge players the shale gas (that is what lng is made from) started to collapse it went from high of 29 to low of $5 possibly even less but $5 anyways it was a glut and race to the bottom. I was thinking how stupid is the BC and Canadian Government if other provinces look to be involved not seeing what the environment was and how long it would take to have the infrastructure in place. The site was prepared to some extent but to my knowledge thankfully things got scrapped or at least put on hold however whatever amounts was spent in my eyes was wasted so i believe one out of 4 damns on site C is was for lng. The point is that every source has pros and cons and you need to factor in all sources in the production process as well as if there are non clean sources in the working process. In any case energy remains quite an interesting area to look at and clean energy is all relative when you look beyond the catch phrase and rhetoric to see what the actual facts are. There needs to be an proper National energy plan in place outlining every single pros and cons for each source in a very scientific non biased report where people have the right to know more of the accurate truths vs being mislead due to rhetoric and catch phrases. Maybe fossil fuels are overall better than all alt energy source who knows??? But i have bought into alt energy however i am more and more skeptical about tge sources being as clean and without some serious flaws as touted even so we need energy but we also need to do things properly not listen to rhetoric for or against fossil fuels and alt energy. We need to cut through all that bs and have impartial scientific facts and truths with proper measures and studies. For now i will support the alt energy and any fossil fuel or mining company that looks to "green their process".